In Georgia, Tea Partiers And Occupiers Unite To Fight Corporate Assault On The First

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

In Georgia, Tea Partiers And Occupiers Unite To Fight Corporate Assault On The First

As we reported earlier this month, Waffle House executive and Georgia state senator Don Balfour is pushing a bill, SB469, that would prohibit picketing outside private residences, a law that would’ve put the Founding Fathers themselves in jail. The law is being pushed with the help of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and Corporate America, and is primarily targeted at labor unions.

One group that has protested the bill is Occupy Atlanta, which has held large rallies at the state capitol. After Republic Report made the connection to Waffle House, Atlanta Jobs With Justice leafleted at Waffle Houses across the state to fight back against this corporate assault on free speech. Watch one of Jobs With Justice’s activists explain the leafletting campaign:

Now, Georgia’s Tea Partiers have joined the occupiers and labor unions in battling against Corporate America’s war on free speech. On Monday, the Atlanta Tea Party sent a message to its 50,000-person list opposing the bill. One of its main activists, Debbie Dooley, also testified against it in the state legislature. “Labor unions have First Amendment rights just like Tea Parties,” Dooley told Salon. “I don’t see how you can say it’s OK for one group to go and protest in front of CNN but a labor union can’t.”

The alliance between occupiers, tea partiers, and union members in Georgia against this corporate assault on the First Amendment is a promising sign that Americans of all ideologies are waking up and fighting back against the capture of our democracy by monied interests.

[*******#222222][FONT=Verdana]I hope the two groups hurry up and find that common ground soon. Here in Tallahassee, the powers that be are absolutely terrified of the idea as both groups’ core principles are antithetical to the country club sets stranglehold on everything.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Interesting, I mentioned back on October that some TPers and OWS people where trying to net work together. Who know maybe we will see a real rise of a third party or major shift in one of them.

I remember seeing your comments, and thinking that the idea was extremely interesting and provocative, as I've always believed in the usefulness of counter-intuitive thinking (hence my user handle).

There are those who believe that the political spectrum is metaphorically curved (mimicking the historical origins of the terms "Right Wing" and "Left Wing", which referred to where their adherents sat in the assembly at the time of the French Revolution). In the Newtonian world view of the 18th century, this image was used to describe the distance and separation of these political world-views.

In modern physics, however, the physical universe is seen as curving back on itself like an ouroboros. In a bizarre paradox, two travellers going off in opposite directions will, at their furthest point of travel, eventually meet. Politics also seems to obey this principle, in which the consequences can be both malign and benign. On the largest, macro scale, 20th century politics furnishes an illustration of the former, as fascist and stalinist regimes began to resemble each other in so many respects that they are commonly classified within the murky genus of totalitarianism.

The rallying to common cause, in this particular case, of the Tea Party, the Occupiers, and the Unions, is on much more limited and specific ground. And I also happen to agree with their defense of First Amendment rights, in this particular instance.

But my own view is that this is a very temporary marriage of convenience, which cannot result in viable, lasting progeny. First, because the phenomenon of wholesale resemblance happens at the furthest extremes, a state that does not currently characterize any of these groups. Second, because, even at those extremes, resemblance will generally not equate to mutual acceptance but, again, ironically, heightened conflict, a kind of struggle to the death. (It calls to mind the National Socialists and the Communists sharing a commitment to bringing down the Weimar regime, but who were then in an elimination match thereafter. The parallel with the current situation is not in the particulars of the views, but in the political dynamics).

The Tea Party, it seems to me, is, at its philosophical base, about a traditionalist notion of political individualism and limited government, with a significant column of cultural conservatives attached. The Occupiers have not yet, I think, developed a coherent philosophy that defines them as a group, but my impression is that the supporters are generally the mirror opposite of Tea Party members, with a communalist political view (the environment, economic "fairness", etc.) and a view that government ought to take an active role in bringing about such changes, but who see themselves as culturally iconoclastic and individualist. The unions are, by large, politically communalist at least in their economic views, but culturally traditionalist and conservative. I don't see how these views can be reconciled in a broad, long-term, sustainable way.

But as a hypothetical, if a short-term convergence of their widely disparate interests did manage to bring down the old political arrangements, what would take its place, I wonder? I am somewhat curious and uneasy, in equal measure.

But my own view is that this is a very temporary marriage of convenience, which cannot result in viable, lasting progeny. First, because the phenomenon of wholesale resemblance happens at the furthest extremes, a state that does not currently characterize any of these groups. Second, because, even at those extremes, resemblance will generally not equate to mutual acceptance but, again, ironically, heightened conflict, a kind of struggle to the death. (It calls to mind the National Socialists and the Communists sharing a commitment to bringing down the Weimar regime, but who were then in an elimination match thereafter. The parallel with the current situation is not in the particulars of the views, but in the political dynamics).

The Tea Party, it seems to me, is, at its philosophical base, about a traditionalist notion of political individualism and limited government, with a significant column of cultural conservatives attached. The Occupiers have not yet, I think, developed a coherent philosophy that defines them as a group, but my impression is that the supporters are generally the mirror opposite of Tea Party members, with a communalist political view (the environment, economic "fairness", etc.) and a view that government ought to take an active role in bringing about such changes, but who see themselves as culturally iconoclastic and individualist. The unions are, by large, politically communalist at least in their economic views, but culturally traditionalist and conservative. I don't see how these views can be reconciled in a broad, long-term, sustainable way.

The Tea Parties desire to shrink government empowering the individual flies in the face of any entrenched power interests. These powers have spent decades and billions investing in the byzantine regulatory system to publicize the financial losses of their endless ratcheting down on ever more license. Because of this “attack” on the interests easy ride to wealth, I feel the Tea Party is the most dangerous faction to those currently in power should it entrench in one of the current party’s or create a new one. I expect this to be the reasoning for the earlier herculean media effort in negative managed perception shaping public opinion against this group.

From those many former Tea Partiers within the Occupy movement that I know, they seek to leverage the legal and media systems to badger their way into being tossed income redistribution bones requiring even more layers of bureaucratic licenses and complexity. This is antithesis of the hard core Tea Parties anti collectivist, small government philosophy.

What I find intriguing from your post are the comments of OWS supporters feeling culturally iconoclastic, individualist, environmentalist, etc… These are exactly what the Tea Partiers I know think of themselves as well. The fundamental difference, the only difference of note, between the TP and OW that I’ve noticed, having participated in both, is equality of outcome. Those still remaining in the Tea Party I’ve seen support a more libertarian view of outcome equality while those who migrated over to Occupy fall more to the Socialist viewpoint. The arguments over privatizing profits vs. publicizing loss have been a lot of fun but both parties agree there’s a bit too much publicizing of loss currently going on and in a not so ethical way in DC.

Where I find both converging quite strongly is at the classic liberalist concept of equal justice. Both increasingly seem to find the legal system on the verge of illegitimacy, the legislative system corrupted and worry about disenfranchisement. I hear the Republicrat and Obomny slurs used frequently in both circles.

Personally, I find the Tea Partiers and Occupier base the voice of the long missing, disenfranchised US centrists fed up with the peak of the reigning 80 year Oligarchic wave. Both are a healthy and traditional US response to entrenched corruption and the seed of the next socioeconomic wave to come. If they go at each other’s throats, it won’t much be due to ideological polarity but more because of the Oligarchs mistakenly over playing both groups against one another before handing Occupy the hierarchical power and stoking Tea Party fuel into the next economy.[/FONT][/SIZE]

I would join the Tea Party and the Occupiers if they ditched the crazy fringe element.

I'm pretty sympathetic to the tea party movement in general although I haven't joined it yet.

But the Atlanta occupy movement is just full of morons. And to dispute the OP, the Atlanta occupuy movement has not held "large rallies" at the state capitol. They're a small fringe group full of leftist retards.

I remember seeing your comments, and thinking that the idea was extremely interesting and provocative, as I've always believed in the usefulness of counter-intuitive thinking (hence my user handle)........................

Originally Posted by vryhpyammoadded

[SIZE=2][FONT=verdana]
The Tea Parties desire to shrink government empowering the individual flies in the face of any entrenched power interests. These powers have spent decades and billions investing in the byzantine regulatory system to publicize the financial losses of their endless ratcheting down on ever more license. ..............[/FONT][/SIZE]

Well said. It seems to me why the candidates for the presidential race of 2012 may seem to be lacking, there is a great potential of a major change in the political landscape within the US. Maybe the silent majority ( a 70's/80's term) may not be silent any more. They have found a voice.

Very appreciative of the responses, particularly from the posters with direct contact/involvement with these movements. vryhpyammoadded ​and Hollis, unless I'm misreading, seem to share the view that there is potentially fertile common ground between the two movements. But Spartan10k's comments seem to indicate a sense of a fairly significant gulf.

My questions: 1) if you believe that a viable movement/party can be created from these currently separate groupings, what do you think would be the main elements of a politically effective platform? 2) what (if anything) of their current programs/attitudes would need to be discarded or modified in order for them to mutually co-exist under one roof without civil war? 3) Would the gravitational pull of the elements that you believe these movements have in common be sufficiently persuasive to overcome the centripetal force of their differences (which, let's be realistic, do exist)?

Juxtapose, My experience with OWS people are from those how are out here (Oregon). Probably more specifically around Salem. Sort of adding to what Shermbodius said, there are fringe groups and some people will see the OWS movement as being the same as those fringe groups. One of the peacekeepers told me, "How can I tell them to leave when are here doing the same thing they are?" There is two issues they promote, Corporate responsibility and transparency of the government. That is also a key element in the Tea Party. They may fracture on other lines but those two seem to be a common thread. There is another element to the OCS, it is almost libertarian in scope/purpose. That is freedom of the internet, keep government out. That you would have to go to the Anonymous group site to find out more. They seem to share some common thoughts as the libertarians do. Ron Paul crowd identifies more with the R's than they do the D's. Personally I though it was mistake for the R's to marginalize the OWS movement. That just makes it easier for the D's to try to co-op them. There is a question about if the Tea Party was co-opted by the R's or not. Personally I think the OWS and Tea Party has more in common than not. One common them was that both major parties no longer listen to the people.

I also think that keeping them apart is more in the interest of the D's and R's than either group.

I think the two groups could be merged under one banner if...
They decided on a combined and agreed on common beliefs.
(I.E. Smaller more transparent government, Less government ties to Wall St., Less taxes and waste, etc....( off the top of my head).
A leadership structure with some sort of funding.
A leader.
Selecting and placing members in political positions.(Tea Party is very effective in this)
Getting the message out and not in embarrassing ways.
Just something I was think of.

I'm pretty sympathetic to the tea party movement in general although I haven't joined it yet.

But the Atlanta occupy movement is just full of morons. And to dispute the OP, the Atlanta occupuy movement has not held "large rallies" at the state capitol. They're a small fringe group full of leftist retards.

Good to know. You seem like a reasonable guy, but according to our main man juxtapose, "i[*******#333333]n modern physics, however, the physical universe is seen as curving back on itself like an ouroboros. In a bizarre paradox, two travellers going off in opposite directions will, at their furthest point of travel, eventually meet. Politics also seems to obey this principle, in which the consequences can be both malign and benign."
[/COLOR]
I think you're better off joining gay republican groups as curvature of the their political thought progress will eventually meet the other political spectrum, thus allowing to fulfill your political requirements.

Good to know. You seem like a reasonable guy, but according to our main man juxtapose, "i[*******#333333]n modern physics, however, the physical universe is seen as curving back on itself like an ouroboros. In a bizarre paradox, two travellers going off in opposite directions will, at their furthest point of travel, eventually meet. Politics also seems to obey this principle, in which the consequences can be both malign and benign."
[/COLOR]
I think you're better off joining gay republican groups as curvature of the their political thought progress will eventually meet the other political spectrum, thus allowing to fulfill your political requirements.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Other than accusing me of being a Republican (a false accusation by the way).

Hollis and juxtapose are talking about the Seattle occupy group though. It would seem from what Hollis has said about them, that they are not all morons like the Atlanta OWS crowd.